Why We Shouldn’t Expect More from the G20….

I think that it is unreasonable to expect a “Sputnik Moment” from the G-20, or frankly from almost any challenge we face today. Sputnik was the moment it was, because it represented an immediate and existential threat in the minds of most Americans. It was a singular event that actually occurred, rather than a potential result that might come about. The USSR had the bomb and they had the ability to be overhead whenever they chose.

A full quarter century after the end of the cold war, we tend to forget how that tension between the Communists and the Capitalists gripped the public policy decision making, but it was a military/security policy. Physical security is tangible to most humans. We are hardwired to be concerned with it. Economics is different. It is disconnected from our physical concerns.

The motivator today is the existential threat that is perceived (I say wrongly perceived) in immigration and terrorism. Despite Sputnik and the race to the moon, stagnation still overwhelmed the U.S. economy in the 70’s. And then, we recovered. Only to fail again, recover, fail, and recover once more. Sputnik presented a one way trip to annihilation. Economics tends to present temporary challenges to be endured.

Economics involves far too many elements, is too imprecise, and involves too many competing perspectives to be a galvanizing force until an event takes place. Even then, economic events tend to be regional. Unlike nuclear bombs dropping, they do not affect every interest in the same way. Sputnik was a moment for the United States and their rival the Soviet Union. The response required a motivated nation, not a negotiated, coordinated, multinational effort. It was about one group competing against a second group. Economics is not alone. These are the challenges that face environmentalists worried about climate change and public health advocates concerned about potential epidemics and officials trying to reign in North Korea or find peace in the Middle East. The human tendency is to react to their current condition and the immediate prospects for changing that condition for good or ill.

Mr. El-Erian may very well be right that the lack of coordinated action will lead to multi-generational challenges and political instability, but lack of action is a condition, not an event. Unfortunately, like the proverbial frog in the water being heated to a boil, there is unlikely to be a convincing, galvanizing argument to be made until it is too late and a global contagion has begun.

For us individual actors, the questions are similar: What things might happen? What might we do about them when they do? How do we prepare today to take those potential actions in the future? Are there actions we can take that can shape what actually does happen?

A recent Pew Research poll shows that not only is Pope Francis popular among American Catholics, but perhaps more importantly, among the “nones” (those people not identifying with any religion). This is an opportunity for the local Church. While this interpretation is not addressed in this research, I would suggest that Pope Francis has changed the dialogue for Catholicism today. While doctrine hasn’t changed, the approach has.

To begin with, the Holy Father encourages dialogue, rather than the monologue that his two immediate predecessors seemed to engender. This is the first opportunity for parishes throughout the country. We can really only take advantage of this opening at the local level. Parish communities should be building on the Pope’s approach to invite a broader community into conversation. This conversation with the unchurched will lead to conversions from among their ranks.

More important than the openness the Pope is advancing is his focus. Despite not changing doctrine, from the taking of his name he has shone a bright light of the Church’s preferential option for the poor. He has been in one way or the other saying that regardless of how important the various inflammatory “morality” questions are, there is no more primary question than how do we treat the least of our brothers and sisters. And this, paired with an openness to conversation, is a very powerful evangelization opportunity.

A while back I highlighted the book Rebuilt. One of the foundational points that those authors make is that it is not the responsibility of a parish to serve the customers that are parishioners; rather the mission is to strengthen parishioners for discipleship and evangelization. The Sunday mass should be the beginning of the week, not an isolated hour within it. From the communion with the Risen Lord, we should be renewed for our efforts as disciples in the world. If our parishes commit to our charge and go out as Catholic Christians, serving the poor, we will be preaching as both the Holy Father and his namesake would have us.

Combining service and dialogue would be a very powerful force to grow and enliven our church.

Seattle has rightfully made some news lately with a dramatic increase to the city’s minimum wage. I applaud the city for doing something bold. I’m not convinced that this raise will “lift all boats”. I have always been of the opinion (an opinion based on logic more than data), that some people at the low end of the wage scale are hurt by a minimum wage as some are helped. The most recent America magazine article articulates a healthy skepticism over this point. I have also been of the opinion that the effect of a minimum wage increase on the very wealthy is negligible, but Seattle billionaire Nick Hanauer is changing my mind on this score with the “middle out economics” he has been espousing. In my last post I commented on Mr. Hanauer’s article and how it got me considering

Hanauer’s economics also supports my long held belief that increasing minimum wage has the most notable impact (positively) on the “middle class”. As he explains it, increasing spending power of the middle class, increases spending. There is a limited amount of product and service a microscopically small minority will buy. Regardless of how wealthy the individuals are they can only wear so many pieces of art and hire so many people to prepare their taxes… and it would be self defeating if they were the only ones with the cash to buy the products their companies produce. The wealthy need a large and reasonably confident middle class to be the marketplace for their companies, if they are to grow, or even maintain their economic position.

I think that the move towards minimum wages has more positives than negatives for the poor, but at best, it is only one component of a solution. Middle out is better than trickle down, but it still isn’t bottom up. The Catholic calling is to show preference for the poor. If Jesus was clear about one thing, it was that salvation starts with the poor.

I was thinking about Nick Hanauer’s economic idea of “middle out” recently and I opened the calculator app on my phone to help me get a sense of scope. I thought my calculator was broken. If you work for 40 hours at the Federal minimum wage, you earn….. $290. If Bill Gates’s net worth rounds to $80 Billion dollars (what’s a hundred million between friends) and there are 3.3 Million people who work for the Federal minimum, Mr. Gates could pay the salaries 3.3 million salaries and still have enough to spend the median U.S. income ($51,000) every year for 610,000 years (this ignores inflation and any earnings on the money, but I would assume that that would only wind up in Bill’s favor).

I do not begrudge Bill Gates his billions. And I am not advocating that he pays all those salaries; I am just pointing out that he COULD. But when I think about the nearly incomprehensible chasm separating the wealthiest and the poorest, I can’t help but think…. we could do better.